Abstract

The paper argues for the viability and indispensibility of the so-called golden rule as a principle of moral reasoning. Drawing mostly on prior research by Hans Reiner an initial morphological analysis shows that the rule historically appears in three different, albeit irreducible forms: first as a rule of empathy, secondly as a rule of autonomy, finally as a rule of reciprocity. Pointing out and eliminating the ambivalences of its factual variants the paper then tries to reestablish the rule in its ethical ideality. The analysis Ieads to the conclusion that the golden rule is not and cannot be a principle of a genuinely Christian, but only and exclusively of a purely philosophical ethics.